Upon the official’s inability to opportune present a testimony, Narain contended that the administration was committed to create the Blue Book on the grounds that the legislature did not raise its non-exposure benefit and that the record did not identify with the undertakings of the State. The High Court decided that because of the administration’s inability to document a sworn statement in the principal example, the exposure of the report must be denied on the off chance that it was an unpublished government record and that its generation would be against open intrigue. The court presumed that the Blue Book was not an unpublished record inside the importance of Section 123 of the Evidence Act in light of the fact that the Union Government and an individual from the Parliament had alluded to a part of the report and that the administration neglected to indicate its reasons as why the divulgence would be against open intrigue.

As needs be, the Allahabad High Court requested the generation of the Blue Book for Narain. The main issue under the watchful eye of the Court was whether the Blue Book was an unpublished government record inside the importance of Section 123 of the Evidence Act. As indicated by the Court, the hidden motivation behind the area is to counteract “damage to open,” through divulgence or creation of government archives, and it is the capacity of the legal to adjust that enthusiasm “against the general population enthusiasm for the organization of equity that courts ought to have the fullest conceivable access to every single applicable material.” [p. 2] as a rule,

“State papers, private authority reports and interchanges between the Government and its officers or between such officers are special from creation on the ground of open approach or as being hindering to general society intrigue or administration.” [p.2] And Section 123 forces the commitment on the legislature to opportune case such benefit in a sworn statement. For this situation, the Court, while recognizing the administration’s inability to document an oath in the principal occurrence, continued with its investigation of the Blue Book in light of the previously mentioned norms. It decided that the report couldn’t be viewed as a distributed government record simply dependent on the way that a portion of its part had been uncovered by other government substances. [p. 4]

Accordingly, the Court needed to consider whether the archive identified with government secret data and whether its non-exposure was in general society intrigue. [p. 3] It originally held that the Court “has the abrogating capacity to deny a case of benefit brought by the State up in regard of an unpublished report relating to issues of State, however in its discretion[,] the Court will practice its capacity just in extraordinary conditions when open intrigue requests, Naren Online Tech Support that is, the point at which people in general intrigue served by the exposure obviously exceeds that served by the nondisclosure.” As pertinent for this situation, the Supreme Court likewise noticed that under Section 162 of the Evidence Act, a protest to revelation of a favored government record “ought to be documented on the date which is settled for the generation of archive so the Court may choose the legitimacy of such complaint.”